Theme: Cooperation

  • Requirements for Voluntary Cooperation

    (worth repeating)

    [W]e are only ‘voluntarily cooperating’ if we have a choice to cooperate or not. We use the term ‘cooperate’, originating with human voluntary cooperation, and by analogy apply it to other creatures who simulate voluntary cooperation. But, how many of those creatures voluntarily cooperate, and how many of them only appear to, and possess no sentience (volition) at all? What is required of for voluntary cooperation?

    REQUIREMENTS
    – The capacity for shared intent.
    – The capacity to determine if shared intent is beneficial or not.
    – The capacity to choose to invest in that shared intent or not.
    – The capacity to signal consent to shared intent.
    – The capacity to punish defectors / cheaters, whether by refusal of future cooperation, punishment, or death.

    So while it is true that verbal language is not required, signaling is. And that’s enough.

    As far as I know, if you cannot choose, consent, and punish defectors then its not voluntary cooperation.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Result of Interaction

    RESULTS: THE FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE 1) WAR: Both parties prey upon each other in mutual destruction (consumption) 2) PREDATION: In which on party preys upon the other for the purpose of destruction (consumption) 3) PARASITISM: In which one party benefits at another’s expense 4) COMMENSALISM: In which one party benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped 5) EXCHANGE: In which costs are reciprocally offset without gain. 6) MUTUALISM (production) : in which both parties benefit. 7) COLONIALISM : In which one party pays the cost of training the other to cooperate. 8) SACRIFICE: In which one party harms itself in order to benefit the other. 9) SUICIDE: In which one party destroys itself in order to benefit the other.

  • Result of Interaction

    RESULTS: THE FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE 1) WAR: Both parties prey upon each other in mutual destruction (consumption) 2) PREDATION: In which on party preys upon the other for the purpose of destruction (consumption) 3) PARASITISM: In which one party benefits at another’s expense 4) COMMENSALISM: In which one party benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped 5) EXCHANGE: In which costs are reciprocally offset without gain. 6) MUTUALISM (production) : in which both parties benefit. 7) COLONIALISM : In which one party pays the cost of training the other to cooperate. 8) SACRIFICE: In which one party harms itself in order to benefit the other. 9) SUICIDE: In which one party destroys itself in order to benefit the other.

  • Moral Realism: The Prohibition On Free Riding

    (pulled out and reposted) [L]ibertarianism argues that Non Aggression, (NAP) + Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) constitute a universal moral natural law. This is ‘almost real’. And any claim that natural rights or natural law exist is to claim moral realism (constant correspondence.) Now, I disagree with IVP and NAP, because I have learned that human moral standards are universally higher than that. That no groups exist and can exist by treating internal members as such. And that peoples who use the NAP with outsiders are usually outcast and exterminated. However, if we look at universally demonstrated human behaviors, we see that it is quite possible to identify a small number of constant moral constraints upon our action. And that these moral constraints reflect our reproductive strategies – and must. Further, that all cultures may implement more or less of these moral constraints, and that many of these moral constraints are mixed with signaling (which is not a moral constraint, but a signal of commitment to moral constraints – usually ritualistic costs that one must bear). This means that all moral systems include the universal moral rules, a level of adoption of those rules that suits their reproductive structure within the particular moral structure of production available to them, and a body of rituals and signals. And that all moral codes in all groups can be reduced to technical descriptions on the axes I have described. If this is true, and I am correct, and I think the evidence suggests that I am correct, then the underlying moral code is on that is in favor of cooperation while prohibiting free riding, where failing to engage in cooperation is also free riding. As such, the underlying moral intuition begins with the prohibition on free riding. Further that depending on a number of environmental variables such as geography and competition, humans will produce predictable moral codes, albeit a wide variety of signals. And yes, the genders differ in the distribution of weights that they give to those underlying moral codes. As such, we have finally uncovered the logic and science of morality. And as such, morality is both real, and non arbitrary. Thus the only means of moral action we possess is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange, free of negative externalities, in which we contributed to production. It implies that one cannot refuse a trade that causes one no loss, takes no effort, exposes one to no risk, and benefits another. Everyone has something to trade. Even if it’s merely respect for life, property, manners, ethics, morals and rituals. And that is enough to trade for the benefits of the market, and the opportunity to conduct other trades with those who likewise enter into the bargain.

  • Moral Realism: The Prohibition On Free Riding

    (pulled out and reposted) [L]ibertarianism argues that Non Aggression, (NAP) + Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) constitute a universal moral natural law. This is ‘almost real’. And any claim that natural rights or natural law exist is to claim moral realism (constant correspondence.) Now, I disagree with IVP and NAP, because I have learned that human moral standards are universally higher than that. That no groups exist and can exist by treating internal members as such. And that peoples who use the NAP with outsiders are usually outcast and exterminated. However, if we look at universally demonstrated human behaviors, we see that it is quite possible to identify a small number of constant moral constraints upon our action. And that these moral constraints reflect our reproductive strategies – and must. Further, that all cultures may implement more or less of these moral constraints, and that many of these moral constraints are mixed with signaling (which is not a moral constraint, but a signal of commitment to moral constraints – usually ritualistic costs that one must bear). This means that all moral systems include the universal moral rules, a level of adoption of those rules that suits their reproductive structure within the particular moral structure of production available to them, and a body of rituals and signals. And that all moral codes in all groups can be reduced to technical descriptions on the axes I have described. If this is true, and I am correct, and I think the evidence suggests that I am correct, then the underlying moral code is on that is in favor of cooperation while prohibiting free riding, where failing to engage in cooperation is also free riding. As such, the underlying moral intuition begins with the prohibition on free riding. Further that depending on a number of environmental variables such as geography and competition, humans will produce predictable moral codes, albeit a wide variety of signals. And yes, the genders differ in the distribution of weights that they give to those underlying moral codes. As such, we have finally uncovered the logic and science of morality. And as such, morality is both real, and non arbitrary. Thus the only means of moral action we possess is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange, free of negative externalities, in which we contributed to production. It implies that one cannot refuse a trade that causes one no loss, takes no effort, exposes one to no risk, and benefits another. Everyone has something to trade. Even if it’s merely respect for life, property, manners, ethics, morals and rituals. And that is enough to trade for the benefits of the market, and the opportunity to conduct other trades with those who likewise enter into the bargain.

  • Aristocratice Egalitarianism vs The Central Libertarian Fallacies

    (worth repeating) –Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a replacement for the fallacy of immaculate conception we call natural law. And High trust society is a replacement for the fallacy of aggression as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of a state. Propertarianism is the explanation why.—

  • Aristocratice Egalitarianism vs The Central Libertarian Fallacies

    (worth repeating) –Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a replacement for the fallacy of immaculate conception we call natural law. And High trust society is a replacement for the fallacy of aggression as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of a state. Propertarianism is the explanation why.—

  • The Irony Of Praxeological Apriorism

    [I]n retrospect, isn’t it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations? It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell. But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy. We lost a century. And we may have lost a century of our liberty because of it.

  • The Irony Of Praxeological Apriorism

    [I]n retrospect, isn’t it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations? It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell. But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy. We lost a century. And we may have lost a century of our liberty because of it.

  • THE IRONY OF PRAXEOLOGICAL APRIORISM In retrospect, isnt it ironic that not just

    THE IRONY OF PRAXEOLOGICAL APRIORISM

    In retrospect, isnt it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations?

    It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell.

    But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-13 05:05:00 UTC